life_is_strangefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Canon Inconsistencies/@comment-4325737-20180121014216/@comment-4325737-20180130091759
Even if the timestream is chronological, which I believe it actually is, then there is still no inconsistency, because these events even in this order would not necessarily clash with BTS's take on plot events. Joyce's marriage with David, and her hair being already dyed, means that the normal timelines birthday photo is her 17th birthday, which lines up with alternate Chloe's 16th birthday. The only way the timestream inconsistencies can be claimed is if it was proven that these events would have happened at the same time, but there is no proof. The order is never the issue here, its the assumption that the event when changed, would of happened at the same time. There is absolutely no provable inconsistency here. BTS's take on events doesn't clash with the Ep3/Ep4 timestream in the original at all without the assumption that events changed happen at the same time, which this page assumes. We both agree that Chloe has to be expelled regardless of what happened, but you cannot prove that in either way, she was permanently expelled in 2010 in BTS. That's what you are not getting. Talking about her disciplinary record and her graffiti in the bathroom, or even telling Rachel the truth is not hard proof to claim she would be permanently expelled because there is no proof that it had any impact. You keep saying that there is no evidence she was reinstated. That's right, but the burden of proof is not on me. All I need is reasonable doubt and that is what James's dialogue caused. Also, there was no "change" here. And speaking of her character sheet, what makes you think that Max saw the whole thing in LIS? She only saw the first page. Once again, Deck Nine danced around the lore and avoided a hard provable inconsistency. It wasn't elegant, and may not be the best way they did it, but they managed to do it. This whole entry should be filed under "ambiguous". It deserves to be mentioned here that it might be an inconsistency if assumptions are made (Like Chloe meeting Nathan entry), but its not a sure, provable one unlike Victoria being a sophomore. Once again, a retcon doesn't even have to change information, all it has to do is change perspective. You can retcon a story by just adding to it and not changing anything in regards to the actual story of the original. Once again, my Sofia Lamb Bioshock example. No lore or plot details in the first game was changed due to the addition of Lamb, they just added her into the history of Rapture to fit the narrative of the sequel. In fact, the writers of BS2 made sure not to have Lamb's story clash with the events of the first game by telling that she was removed from the picture long before Ryan's conflict with Frank Fontaine, which the conflict forms the basis of the first game. But it is still a retcon that changes the perspective of the lore (just not the information). Before the Storm mostly does the same thing here, doing it in a way that the three year gap could cover many would be inconsistencies.